The bulk of the executives and directors were sham appointments (including a part-time Bishop) for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that it was not a UK company and that the investment decisions were not being made in the UK. The undeniable fact is that the investment decisions were being made by people based in the UK and therefore should have been treated as a UK company for tax purposes.
That's not what the tax rules are though. The company was not set up in the UK. If UK residents are earning an income they need to declare it for income tax purposes. Thousands of companies that are set up in Ireland for tax reasons but run by people in the UK do the same thing. This is completely legal and encouraged by the EU under the principle of freedom of movement and services. Vote Leave if you want the rules to change...
Why would a company that is not based in the UK pay HMRC any tax if none was due?
Again, the company's profits are different from earned income. If Ian Cameron was domiciled in the UK and taking an income he would have paid income tax on it, just as David paid tax on any dividends earned from his holding.
Why would a company that is not based in the UK pay HMRC any tax if none was due?
Again, the company's profits are different from earned income. If Ian Cameron was domiciled in the UK and taking an income he would have paid income tax on it, just as David paid tax on any dividends earned from his holding.
But for the fact they set up an artificial situation tax would have been due. You keep saying he did nothing wrong because no laws were broken, but what about the morals or the hypocrisy of his actions?
As shown by his shifting statements, Dave has a similar attitude to the letter of the truth and the spirit of the truth as his father had between the letter of the law and spirit.
Why would a company that is not based in the UK pay HMRC any tax if none was due?
Again, the company's profits are different from earned income. If Ian Cameron was domiciled in the UK and taking an income he would have paid income tax on it, just as David paid tax on any dividends earned from his holding.
You are getting several issues mixed up here. I am not talking about Ian Cameron's individual tax liabilities. The company he helped set up avoided paying UK tax by creating the illusion it was being run from abroad. It was not illegal. But it was without doubt an example of the aggressive tax avoidance practices he has spoken about in the past.
There is also a difference between the tax avoidance of Blairmore Holdings and the Icebreaker and K2 schemes used by Barlow and Carr. The former operates openly, complies and reports to HMRC as necessary, never made any attempt to cover up its activities and follows a perfectly normal model tens of thousands of similar overseas funds use. The latter were accounting schemes specifically designed to aggressively exploit loopholes by moving around and reclassifying income, wealth and losses in order to maximise reported losses and minimise reported profits. There is no hypocrisy of having shares in an overseas fund that is not subject to UK taxes (approved by both HMRC and the EU as being legal and acceptable ways to invest your money) whilst being opposed to abusing HMRC rules.
I'd love to see the Thatcher family's offshore accounts from the 80's getting opened up. I was told the kickbacks from her middle eastern arms deals dwarfed the figures quoted in the press.
Why would a company that is not based in the UK pay HMRC any tax if none was due?
Again, the company's profits are different from earned income. If Ian Cameron was domiciled in the UK and taking an income he would have paid income tax on it, just as David paid tax on any dividends earned from his holding.
You are getting several issues mixed up here. I am not talking about Ian Cameron's individual tax liabilities. The company he helped set up avoided paying UK tax by creating the illusion it was being run from abroad. It was not illegal. But it was without doubt an example of the aggressive tax avoidance practices he has spoken about in the past.
No, I'm not. Thousands of overseas companies are run by people not based in those countries. Almost all pensions will have invested in schemes where the fund is run in the UK and domiciled overseas. Both HMRC and the EU approve of this and do not consider this to be exploitation or aggressive tax avoidance.
If UK based fund managers are drawing an income from a fund based overseas then they pay HMRC tax on their income.
In an increasingly globalised world and with the Internet individuals are able to run companies or make decisions in businesses in dozens of countries apart from the one they are based.
You are just waffling now and not addressing the points being made. Ian Cameron's company avoided paying UK tax for over 30 years by creating the illusion it was being run in the Bahamas by executives and directors resident in the Bahamas when in fact it was being run by people based in the UK.
You are just waffling now and not addressing the points being made. Ian Cameron's company avoided paying UK tax for over 30 years by creating the illusion it was being run in the Bahamas by executives and directors resident in the Bahamas when in fact it was being run by people based in the UK.
Spot on ! He should take an example from our Icelandic friends and fall on the sword !
The bulk of the executives and directors were sham appointments (including a part-time Bishop) for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that it was not a UK company and that the investment decisions were not being made in the UK. The undeniable fact is that the investment decisions were being made by people based in the UK and therefore should have been treated as a UK company for tax purposes.
That's not what the tax rules are though. The company was not set up in the UK. If UK residents are earning an income they need to declare it for income tax purposes. Thousands of companies that are set up in Ireland for tax reasons but run by people in the UK do the same thing. This is completely legal and encouraged by the EU under the principle of freedom of movement and services. Vote Leave if you want the rules to change...
There's almost zero chance of the rules being changed if the UK leaves the EU.
The problem here is not really what the Cameron family did. By all accounts their financial actions were legal, and we should be wary of claiming the moral high ground (just in case we ever find ourselves facing similar choices).
The real issue is that of the need for Caesar's wife to be above suspicion - and, in a democracy, it's advantageous for the same to apply to Caesar himself. It's how Cameron has handled his financial activities, including managing the media narrative, as a politician that is undermining him today. It may well be (but probably won't) that the outcome of this will be that MPs will, in future, all commit publicly to repatriating their funds on election.
You are just waffling now and not addressing the points being made. Ian Cameron's company avoided paying UK tax for over 30 years by creating the illusion it was being run in the Bahamas by executives and directors resident in the Bahamas when in fact it was being run by people based in the UK.
Spot on ! He should take an example from our Icelandic friends and fall on the sword !
You may both know the answer to the following, I don't, and I would be interested, especially after listening to an inconclusive argument on R4 Today just now between John Humphrey and James Quarmby, a tax planning specialist:
I have a regular personal private pension pot, like many ordinary UK citizens. It invests in ordinary unit trust funds. I also invest in such funds outside the pension pot. Am I "investing offshore"?? Dippenhall suggested that all the fund managers are running them from Ireland if I recall. It seems to me that most of them are not, but some are. I keep a record of the funds in Trustnet. So for example I have some of the Invesco Perpetual High Income, a popular fund. But I also have a fund called Lindsell Train Global Equity. I picked it based on a press recommendation. When I entered it into TrustNet, the website automatically designated it as an Offshore Fund (implying that all my others are not).
James Quarmby seemed to suggest we all know, when we invest in funds, that they are 'run offshore'. In my case, clearly, that isn't true. Most of us have a only a hazy understanding of how these things work, even though we 'invest' in them.
Bu I do have a feeling that the answer might make some of us think twice before hounding Cameron too much. I'd much rather concentrate on Google Facebook, et al.
You are just waffling now and not addressing the points being made. Ian Cameron's company avoided paying UK tax for over 30 years by creating the illusion it was being run in the Bahamas by executives and directors resident in the Bahamas when in fact it was being run by people based in the UK.
Spot on ! He should take an example from our Icelandic friends and fall on the sword !
You may both know the answer to the following, I don't, and I would be interested, especially after listening to an inconclusive argument on R4 Today just now between John Humphrey and James Quarmby, a tax planning specialist:
I have a regular personal private pension pot, like many ordinary UK citizens. It invests in ordinary unit trust funds. I also invest in such funds outside the pension pot. Am I "investing offshore"?? Dippenhall suggested that all the fund managers are running them from Ireland if I recall. It seems to me that most of them are not, but some are. I keep a record of the funds in Trustnet. So for example I have some of the Invesco Perpetual High Income, a popular fund. But I also have a fund called Lindsell Train Global Equity. I picked it based on a press recommendation. When I entered it into TrustNet, the website automatically designated it as an Offshore Fund (implying that all my others are not).
James Quarmby seemed to suggest we all know, when we invest in funds, that they are 'run offshore'. In my case, clearly, that isn't true. Most of us have a only a hazy understanding of how these things work, even though we 'invest' in them.
Bu I do have a feeling that the answer might make some of us think twice before hounding Cameron too much. I'd much rather concentrate on Google Facebook, et al.
Looking forward to learning something.
It is true that it is not always easy to tell. I, too, have some Lindsell Train, before I delved around about it and other funds I was not aware that it was offshore. (Lax of me I know but it makes no difference to me, everything is held in an ISA wrapper anyway so no UK tax is payable) I also bought some shares in a company called Redefine International. It is a FTSE 250 constituent but is HQ'd in the Isle of Man. 27 of the properties it owns are leased to the UK Govt. So, clearly , they don't care either. With funds, too, they can hold shares from anywhere and if you've gone for a multi-manager fund, well... Then of course there's the reverse. Take Antofagasta. A very large copper miner with all its operations in South America but HQ'd in London and LSE listed. This type of thing is hailed as a great success for UK plc. But what I wonder do Peruvian miners make of where the company's profits go? The only dumb thing was Cameron not telling us in the first place. I wonder how many of the people complaining have not brought back duty free fags or clothes from Florida in order to avoid paying UK tax? I wonder how happy they were about the savings they had made when they could just as easily bought the same stuff in the UK and contributed taxes to the UK coffers? Storm and teacup.
@IAgree thanks for the LOL, I assume it's still to complicated for you to understand. Let me simplify it for you.
An investment fund manufactures money, just like a factory manufactures goods. In principle the reasons for an offshore investment are no different to the reasons for an offshore manufacturing base, it's cheaper and you pay lower taxes which contributes to reducing operating costs.
It's no more immoral to import foreign goods than import foreign money. In both cases you pay tax on it in the UK one way or another. Only if you conceal it from the taxman is it an issue.
Unless you want a law that says you can only buy goods made in the UK by UK companies you can't sustain an argument against offshore investment funds.
Wealth changes things in that if you are rich enough you can set up your own shoe company in China instead of buying shoes from a high street store, like you can set up your own investment company in Ireland and cut out the middle men instead of using a retail outlet like Hargreaves Lansdowne.
Do you get it yet?
Good job being pompous and patronising isn't taxed or you would need a dodgy off - shore tax haven to stop yourself going bust!
What I "get" is that Downing Street have issued five different statements in a week and that much better minds than me think there is an issue. Thankfully I know very little of the fascinating world of off shore tax dodges but I do know blatant hypocrisy when I see it - Time to have a full inquiry and see if our PM is hiding anything else - Let the disinfectant of sunlight do its work!
You may both know the answer to the following, I don't, and I would be interested, especially after listening to an inconclusive argument on R4 Today just now between John Humphrey and James Quarmby, a tax planning specialist:
I have a regular personal private pension pot, like many ordinary UK citizens. It invests in ordinary unit trust funds. I also invest in such funds outside the pension pot. Am I "investing offshore"?? Dippenhall suggested that all the fund managers are running them from Ireland if I recall. It seems to me that most of them are not, but some are. I keep a record of the funds in Trustnet. So for example I have some of the Invesco Perpetual High Income, a popular fund. But I also have a fund called Lindsell Train Global Equity. I picked it based on a press recommendation. When I entered it into TrustNet, the website automatically designated it as an Offshore Fund (implying that all my others are not).
James Quarmby seemed to suggest we all know, when we invest in funds, that they are 'run offshore'. In my case, clearly, that isn't true. Most of us have a only a hazy understanding of how these things work, even though we 'invest' in them.
Bu I do have a feeling that the answer might make some of us think twice before hounding Cameron too much. I'd much rather concentrate on Google Facebook, et al.
Looking forward to learning something.
Do you know if the senior executives and directors of the companies that run these funds are genuine or just names to give the illusion that they are being run outside the UK and EU?
That is a bit of a mystery. But interesting I thought that the aforementioned James Quarmby, a tax lawyer said on BBC Breakfast this am that the type of fund in question would be the last thing he would recommend if clients wanted efficient tax management. I'm beginning to get the impression that Cameron's Dad was just not very good at his job. I don't know what the law was at the time in the Bahamas but I'm reminded of the "Sark Lark". In that case residents of the tiny Channel Island were directors of hundreds, sometimes thousands of companies. But this was primarily to avoid the tax regime in Guernsey rather than the UK. I'm guessing but maybe (to boost the local economy) it was a requirement of Bahamian law to have local directors? Otherwise, I'm still struggling to understand what tax benefits such an arrangement would have in the UK. If the fund was properly structured as has been said countless times no UK tax would become payable until gains were drawn down or dividends paid, so it matters not where it was based. (Save regarding the position in the UK back in the 1980s - it may just have been the most efficient way to access overseas markets as exchange controls would have severely affected the ability to invest in countries other than the UK. And it was well-known that had he won the 1983 election, Foot intended to reintroduce those controls. The relevant documents/forms, etc had been printed ready to go and were scrapped as soon as Foot lost.)
You may both know the answer to the following, I don't, and I would be interested, especially after listening to an inconclusive argument on R4 Today just now between John Humphrey and James Quarmby, a tax planning specialist:
I have a regular personal private pension pot, like many ordinary UK citizens. It invests in ordinary unit trust funds. I also invest in such funds outside the pension pot. Am I "investing offshore"?? Dippenhall suggested that all the fund managers are running them from Ireland if I recall. It seems to me that most of them are not, but some are. I keep a record of the funds in Trustnet. So for example I have some of the Invesco Perpetual High Income, a popular fund. But I also have a fund called Lindsell Train Global Equity. I picked it based on a press recommendation. When I entered it into TrustNet, the website automatically designated it as an Offshore Fund (implying that all my others are not).
James Quarmby seemed to suggest we all know, when we invest in funds, that they are 'run offshore'. In my case, clearly, that isn't true. Most of us have a only a hazy understanding of how these things work, even though we 'invest' in them.
Bu I do have a feeling that the answer might make some of us think twice before hounding Cameron too much. I'd much rather concentrate on Google Facebook, et al.
Looking forward to learning something.
Do you know if the senior executives and directors of the companies that run these funds are genuine or just names to give the illusion that they are being run outside the UK and EU?
Well the type of funds I am talking about (which are not the same as Cameron's case, I think you would call mine "retail" funds", all have named fund managers, and indeed you are encouraged to take an interest in their performance, and worry if one of them leaves for some reason. A bit like a football manager. Neil Woodford is a well known example. I think I'm right in saying that some of the funds have onshore and offshore variants.
It's quite important because we are all encouraged to invest in these things as part of the drive to make us less dependent on a State pension.
That is a bit of a mystery. But interesting I thought that the aforementioned James Quarmby, a tax lawyer said on BBC Breakfast this am that the type of fund in question would be the last thing he would recommend if clients wanted efficient tax management. I'm beginning to get the impression that Cameron's Dad was just not very good at his job. I don't know what the law was at the time in the Bahamas but I'm reminded of the "Sark Lark". In that case residents of the tiny Channel Island were directors of hundreds, sometimes thousands of companies. But this was primarily to avoid the tax regime in Guernsey rather than the UK. I'm guessing but maybe (to boost the local economy) it was a requirement of Bahamian law to have local directors? Otherwise, I'm still struggling to understand what tax benefits such an arrangement would have in the UK. If the fund was properly structured as has been said countless times no UK tax would become payable until gains were drawn down or dividends paid, so it matters not where it was based. (Save regarding the position in the UK back in the 1980s - it may just have been the most efficient way to access overseas markets as exchange controls would have severely affected the ability to invest in countries other than the UK. And it was well-known that had he won the 1983 election, Foot intended to reintroduce those controls. The relevant documents/forms, etc had been printed ready to go and were scrapped as soon as Foot lost.)
The issue being discussed over the last few pages is not personal tax liabilities that, as you say, only become payable when a profit is crystallised. Ian Cameron's company was not a charity. It earned fees for administering and managing the underlying investments. Those fees contribute to the company's annual profit and loss. It is the tax on those fees that was denied to the UK taxman by the appointment of sham executives and directors.
Prague - not all funds are offshore and I've never stated as such. Most funds you see in a pension pot will be held in the UK, such as your Invesco Perpetual fund.
The Lindsell Train fund appears to be a UK-managed fund held in Ireland by a company headquartered in the USA (BNY Mellon). Confusing? Not really. Lindsell Train is a UK company and any profits it makes will be taxed at a UK level. The fund itself is held in Ireland so any profits the fund makes are subject to Irish tax. The reason why they hold the fund in Ireland rather than the UK is simple - tax. Ireland do not levy tax on profits made by companies based entirely overseas. They also have very low corporation tax, which would be due by BNY Mellon based in Ireland where the funds are held on behalf of Lindsell Train. As Lindsell Train would need to pay BNY Mellon for holding the investments, this fee would be minimised by the low corporation tax.
How is this different from Blairmore? Blairmore was not a UK company and it exists entirely overseas (although it has now moved from the Bahamas to Ireland and now pays Irish corporation tax). The only connection it would have with the UK is the managers based there as well as any clients. Both managers and clients drawing an income from the fund/company would need to follow tax reporting procedures in their home countries.
Red keeps raising the fact that the company was staffed by local residents, no doubt from the Guardian article he linked. The article is not being factually correct or ingenuous with the language it uses, constantly implying that Blairmore's model was/is dodgy or exploiting HMRC rules. Neither are true. Using local residents in named roles would be due to the domiciled country's regulations, not to throw off HMRC. All this information is not hard to find and the company's model was previously acknowledged as within HMRC's guidelines, as are hundreds of companies run in the same way. These local residents are effectively 'nominees', again a perfectly normal and legitimate way to structure a company's management in the eyes of HMRC. I know this from personal experience as an overseas settlement agent, there are strict rules about this.
The Guardian article also makes reference to a local bishop being a nominee. They have only done this to make the nominees seem ridiculous to readers who are not familiar with this sort of thing. Why would it be ridiculous though when you think about it? The head of the Church of England was an oil wealth manager and the Guardian's favourite bank the Co-op was previously managed by a crack-smoking rent-boy loving vicar.
We are living in an increasingly globalised world and thousands of UK citizens run overseas companies thanks to the Internet that do not pay tax in the UK. Why would they if the business is entirely transacted outside of the UK?
The bulk of the executives and directors were sham appointments (including a part-time Bishop) for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that it was not a UK company and that the investment decisions were not being made in the UK. The undeniable fact is that the investment decisions were being made by people based in the UK and therefore the company should have been treated as a UK company for tax purposes.
I admit I don't know why I like this post but I do.
The bulk of the executives and directors were sham appointments (including a part-time Bishop) for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that it was not a UK company and that the investment decisions were not being made in the UK. The undeniable fact is that the investment decisions were being made by people based in the UK and therefore the company should have been treated as a UK company for tax purposes.
I admit I don't know why I like this post but I do.
The problem is there is a factual error in both the first and last sentence of that post, which have been addressed by myself and cafcfan.
It may come as a surprise to many in this day and age but where I worked throughout the 1970s and 1980s my employer provided its staff with "educational loans". These were paid out each term to fund private education or to fund the costs of a child being at Uni. And all an employee had to do was pay the interest and set up an endowment policy to pay off the outstanding capital at some time in the future - long after the kids had left Uni. At that time, you could get tax relief on endowment insurance costs too. So, the actual cost to the staff member was very reasonable indeed. As far as I recall, the majority of staff who had kids took up the offer -not just the posh ones. The total owed was in the many millions before the scheme got knocked on the head.
I would be mildly surprised if where Cameron's Dad worked - Panmure Gordon - there had not been a similar scheme. So it may be that the PMs education was quite a cheap option.
So we know Cameron’s dad was a tax dodger – from what I have seen he was quite an aggressive one. Cameron isn’t his dad though. The problem is, of course he will have benefitted in some way, but that is his dad’s fault not his. It would have been better to come out with it – the press or opponents aren’t going to let go when you clarify your statements by adding 'in the future' – as why add it if you haven’t benefitted in the past?
Cameron is one of the few Conservatives I have time for. But I think the big scoundrels need to be identified as a priority, not the big name ones. That isn’t to say this info shouldn’t be used, but we have more important things to worry about over the next few months, like the future of our children if the Brexiters get their way!
Comments
Again, the company's profits are different from earned income. If Ian Cameron was domiciled in the UK and taking an income he would have paid income tax on it, just as David paid tax on any dividends earned from his holding.
As shown by his shifting statements, Dave has a similar attitude to the letter of the truth and the spirit of the truth as his father had between the letter of the law and spirit.
If UK based fund managers are drawing an income from a fund based overseas then they pay HMRC tax on their income.
In an increasingly globalised world and with the Internet individuals are able to run companies or make decisions in businesses in dozens of countries apart from the one they are based.
The real issue is that of the need for Caesar's wife to be above suspicion - and, in a democracy, it's advantageous for the same to apply to Caesar himself. It's how Cameron has handled his financial activities, including managing the media narrative, as a politician that is undermining him today. It may well be (but probably won't) that the outcome of this will be that MPs will, in future, all commit publicly to repatriating their funds on election.
You may both know the answer to the following, I don't, and I would be interested, especially after listening to an inconclusive argument on R4 Today just now between John Humphrey and James Quarmby, a tax planning specialist:
I have a regular personal private pension pot, like many ordinary UK citizens. It invests in ordinary unit trust funds. I also invest in such funds outside the pension pot. Am I "investing offshore"?? Dippenhall suggested that all the fund managers are running them from Ireland if I recall. It seems to me that most of them are not, but some are. I keep a record of the funds in Trustnet. So for example I have some of the Invesco Perpetual High Income, a popular fund. But I also have a fund called Lindsell Train Global Equity. I picked it based on a press recommendation. When I entered it into TrustNet, the website automatically designated it as an Offshore Fund (implying that all my others are not).
James Quarmby seemed to suggest we all know, when we invest in funds, that they are 'run offshore'. In my case, clearly, that isn't true. Most of us have a only a hazy understanding of how these things work, even though we 'invest' in them.
Bu I do have a feeling that the answer might make some of us think twice before hounding Cameron too much. I'd much rather concentrate on Google Facebook, et al.
Looking forward to learning something.
With funds, too, they can hold shares from anywhere and if you've gone for a multi-manager fund, well...
Then of course there's the reverse. Take Antofagasta. A very large copper miner with all its operations in South America but HQ'd in London and LSE listed.
This type of thing is hailed as a great success for UK plc.
But what I wonder do Peruvian miners make of where the company's profits go?
The only dumb thing was Cameron not telling us in the first place.
I wonder how many of the people complaining have not brought back duty free fags or clothes from Florida in order to avoid paying UK tax? I wonder how happy they were about the savings they had made when they could just as easily bought the same stuff in the UK and contributed taxes to the UK coffers?
Storm and teacup.
What I "get" is that Downing Street have issued five different statements in a week and that much better minds than me think there is an issue. Thankfully I know very little of the fascinating world of off shore tax dodges but I do know blatant hypocrisy when I see it - Time to have a full inquiry and see if our PM is hiding anything else - Let the disinfectant of sunlight do its work!
But interesting I thought that the aforementioned James Quarmby, a tax lawyer said on BBC Breakfast this am that the type of fund in question would be the last thing he would recommend if clients wanted efficient tax management. I'm beginning to get the impression that Cameron's Dad was just not very good at his job.
I don't know what the law was at the time in the Bahamas but I'm reminded of the "Sark Lark". In that case residents of the tiny Channel Island were directors of hundreds, sometimes thousands of companies. But this was primarily to avoid the tax regime in Guernsey rather than the UK. I'm guessing but maybe (to boost the local economy) it was a requirement of Bahamian law to have local directors? Otherwise, I'm still struggling to understand what tax benefits such an arrangement would have in the UK. If the fund was properly structured as has been said countless times no UK tax would become payable until gains were drawn down or dividends paid, so it matters not where it was based. (Save regarding the position in the UK back in the 1980s - it may just have been the most efficient way to access overseas markets as exchange controls would have severely affected the ability to invest in countries other than the UK. And it was well-known that had he won the 1983 election, Foot intended to reintroduce those controls. The relevant documents/forms, etc had been printed ready to go and were scrapped as soon as Foot lost.)
It's quite important because we are all encouraged to invest in these things as part of the drive to make us less dependent on a State pension.
The Lindsell Train fund appears to be a UK-managed fund held in Ireland by a company headquartered in the USA (BNY Mellon). Confusing? Not really. Lindsell Train is a UK company and any profits it makes will be taxed at a UK level. The fund itself is held in Ireland so any profits the fund makes are subject to Irish tax. The reason why they hold the fund in Ireland rather than the UK is simple - tax. Ireland do not levy tax on profits made by companies based entirely overseas. They also have very low corporation tax, which would be due by BNY Mellon based in Ireland where the funds are held on behalf of Lindsell Train. As Lindsell Train would need to pay BNY Mellon for holding the investments, this fee would be minimised by the low corporation tax.
How is this different from Blairmore? Blairmore was not a UK company and it exists entirely overseas (although it has now moved from the Bahamas to Ireland and now pays Irish corporation tax). The only connection it would have with the UK is the managers based there as well as any clients. Both managers and clients drawing an income from the fund/company would need to follow tax reporting procedures in their home countries.
Red keeps raising the fact that the company was staffed by local residents, no doubt from the Guardian article he linked. The article is not being factually correct or ingenuous with the language it uses, constantly implying that Blairmore's model was/is dodgy or exploiting HMRC rules. Neither are true. Using local residents in named roles would be due to the domiciled country's regulations, not to throw off HMRC. All this information is not hard to find and the company's model was previously acknowledged as within HMRC's guidelines, as are hundreds of companies run in the same way. These local residents are effectively 'nominees', again a perfectly normal and legitimate way to structure a company's management in the eyes of HMRC. I know this from personal experience as an overseas settlement agent, there are strict rules about this.
The Guardian article also makes reference to a local bishop being a nominee. They have only done this to make the nominees seem ridiculous to readers who are not familiar with this sort of thing. Why would it be ridiculous though when you think about it? The head of the Church of England was an oil wealth manager and the Guardian's favourite bank the Co-op was previously managed by a crack-smoking rent-boy loving vicar.
We are living in an increasingly globalised world and thousands of UK citizens run overseas companies thanks to the Internet that do not pay tax in the UK. Why would they if the business is entirely transacted outside of the UK?
It may come as a surprise to many in this day and age but where I worked throughout the 1970s and 1980s my employer provided its staff with "educational loans".
These were paid out each term to fund private education or to fund the costs of a child being at Uni. And all an employee had to do was pay the interest and set up an endowment policy to pay off the outstanding capital at some time in the future - long after the kids had left Uni. At that time, you could get tax relief on endowment insurance costs too. So, the actual cost to the staff member was very reasonable indeed. As far as I recall, the majority of staff who had kids took up the offer -not just the posh ones. The total owed was in the many millions before the scheme got knocked on the head.
I would be mildly surprised if where Cameron's Dad worked - Panmure Gordon - there had not been a similar scheme. So it may be that the PMs education was quite a cheap option.
This is the street in the Bahamas which Ian Cameron claimed was his normal residential address.
Cameron is one of the few Conservatives I have time for. But I think the big scoundrels need to be identified as a priority, not the big name ones. That isn’t to say this info shouldn’t be used, but we have more important things to worry about over the next few months, like the future of our children if the Brexiters get their way!